Documents setting out the establishment of the ECCU from the Department for the Economy

​​​Request 735367426 

Please can you provide copies of any documents setting out the legal basis for the establishment of the ECCU and for vesting in the ECCU legal jurisdiction for carrying out criminal investigations, which is otherwise the responsibility of the States of Jersey Police (SOJP).

It is thought likely that: (a) the Department for the Economy; (b) Justice and Home Affairs; and (c) the States of Jersey Police, should have relevant information.

There is a clear public interest in such information being released, not least because of the considerable amount of public funds spent on (and by) the ECCU.

Response

The requested information is not held by the Department for the Economy. Therefore Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied.

Article applied

Article 3 - Meaning of “information held by a public authority”

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if –

(a) it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or

(b) it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.​

Internal Review Request                       

​It is disappointing that the SPA (the Department for the Economy) is refusing to provide any further information as to the searches undertaken. 

As the SPA will be aware, the ECCU features prominently in MONEYVAL's Fifth Round Mutual Evaluation Report of Jersey, which contains over 150 references to the "ECCU". It is public knowledge that present and former employees of the SPA, including (without limitation) Mr George Pearmain and Ms Helen De La Cour, were heavily involved in the MONEYVAL process. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the records of such individuals involved in the MONVEYAL process may hold information setting out the legal basis for the establishment of the ECCU (if there is such a basis) and should have been searched for responsive information. 

In the circumstances, and given the JOIC's previous findings, I can have no confidence that adequate searches have been undertaken this time. 

Accordingly, I hereby request an internal review of the SPA's response.
As part of the internal review, I request that particular attention is given to the adequacy (or otherwise) of the searches for the requested information.  

Amongst other things, it would be helpful if the internal review response could please clarify: (a) what search terms were used by the SPA, (b) that the searches by the SPA were not limited to Cryoserver but also included other digital records, and (c) whether manual searches were conducted by the SPA, including reviews of both physical files and digital folders. 

If the internal review does not provide further information about the searches undertaken, ultimately I may be left with no choice but to again refer this matter to the JOIC. It would be preferable if this could be avoided.

Internal Review Response 

This internal review has been conducted by an official of appropriate seniority who has not been involved in the original decision. As part of their review, they will be expected to understand the reasons behind the original response, impartially determine whether the response should be revised, and how so, considering the request and the information held, any relevant exemptions, or other relevant matters under the Law. 

The Internal Review Panel was asked to review the original response and confirm the following:  
Does the FOI request relate to a body to which the Law applies, or information held by a body covered by the Law?  

If the answer is no, all the other questions are not applicable. 
Further questions if above is a yes:    

1. Was the right information searched for and reviewed?
2. Was the information supplied appropriately?
3. Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with the articles applied and were the public interest test/ prejudice test properly applied? 

Option 1: Following discussion, it was agreed by the Panel that the decision was upheld.